orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (11/08/85)
T.C. Wheeler with some more "facts": > Look it up. In the second place, if the country is in such > dire straights, why is every economic indicator we know > pointing up? Could it be that you have such a hatred for > RR that you are letting it cloud reality? "Every economic indicator is pointing up?" How is that? We have the largest trade deficits we have ever had in our history, the productivity index is stalled, and for the first time in decades we are a debtor nation. And you say "every economic indicator is looking up"?? Moreover we also continue to suffer from an unemployment rate of over 7% - 20 years ago such an unemployment rate would have been considered an intolerable sign of a recession. This is the unemployment rate when the economy is in an upswing. What will it be when the economy inevitably slows down again? The savings rate is at the lowest rate in decades and "every economic indicator is looking up"? For now the only economic indicator in good shape is the inflation rate. But you will note the inflation rate was in very good shape during the Depression when 33% of the workforce was unemployed-in fact there was a DE-flation rate. However that is not the sole measure of a sound economy nor of the average person's economic well-being. Has the average person's economic well-being improved? Not according to two independent studies which show a significant decline in the middle-class, an increase in poverty, and a major shift in income inequality: Frank Levy and Richard Michel of the Urban Institute reported that "Over the last five years, the income distribution has become less equal". They pointed out that disposable income among the poorest fifth of Americans had fallen from $7,548 to $6,833, a decline of 9.4% Among the richest fifth of Americans disposable income fell from $39,348 to $39,158, a drop of one half of one percent. Stephen J. Rose a Baltimore research economist estimated the number of people in the middle part of the middle class by calculating the number of households with annual incomes in an intermediate range between high and low incomes. ($11,500 to $27,400 in 1978 and $17,000 to $41,000 in 1983) In 1978 55% of the population was in the middle-income group. In 1983 only 42% were in the middle-income group. Of those who left the middle class three-fourths suffered a decline in their standard of living and only one-fourth improved their standard of living. These studies were reported in the New York Times in December,1983. If you don't believe it : LOOK IT UP! Reagan's policies are very effectively decreasing the middle-class, increasing the wealth of the wealthiest, and decreasing the income of the poor, *most especially* the working poor who remain poor despite their valiant attempts to work for a living. The GNP growth rate has also fallen but remains higher than most analysts expected. Moreover loan me a trillion dollars and see if I can't make the economy grow for a period. I should suppose anybody could do that. But don't ask me how I expect to pay back the trillion dollars in debt I have accumulated. For that is the amount Reagan and his supporters in Congress have added to the federal debt. Whether creditors will be willing to accept a few MX missiles in payment is dubious- they really have very little productive value. waiting for the house of cards to blow over..... tim sevener whuxn!orb